Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26809344›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2016

Text Reminders in Colorectal Cancer Screening (TRICCS): Protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Yasemin Hirst, Robert Kerrison, Lindsay C Kobayashi, Nicholas Counsell, Natasha Djedovic, Josephine Ruwende, Mark Stewart, Christian von Wagner

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Burden of colorectal cancer in China, 1990Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Yasemin HirstHealth Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Robert KerrisonHealth Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Lindsay C KobayashiHealth Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Nicholas CounsellCancer Research UK & UCL Cancer Trials Centre, Cancer Institute, University College London, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 4TJ, UK.
Natasha DjedovicBowel Cancer Screening Hub - London, Northwick Park & St. Mark`s Hospitals, Watford Road, Harrow, Middlesex, HA1 3UJ, UK.
Josephine RuwendeNHS England London Region, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.
Mark StewartBowel Cancer Screening Hub - London, Northwick Park & St. Mark`s Hospitals, Watford Road, Harrow, Middlesex, HA1 3UJ, UK.
Christian von WagnerHealth Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK. c.wagner@ucl.ac.uk.
University College London · GBSt Mark's Hospital · GBCancer Research UK · GBNHS England

Funding

Cancer Research UK 14134
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreening with the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt) is associated with improved colorectal cancer (CRC) survival, and is offered biennially to men and women aged 60-74 years in England's national Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Uptake of the gFOBt is low, with only 54 % of the eligible population completing the test. Text-message reminders could improve uptake of gFOBt. METHODS/

designThis paper describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial, which will examine the effectiveness of a text-message reminder to promote uptake of gFOBt screening in the BCSP. Individual mobile telephone data from 180 general practices in London with existing mobile-health services will be linked to the national BCSP information system via a secure on-line network. All screening-eligible adults registered with a participating practice will be randomised, to receive either usual care (N = 1600) or usual care plus a text-message reminder to self-complete and return their kit eight weeks after their initial invitation (N = 1600). The primary outcome will be the proportion of individuals who return an adequately completed gFOBt kit within 18 weeks of the initial invitation. Differences in uptake between groups will be evaluated using a logistic regression analysis, adjusting for individual-level and area-level socio-demographic variables. DISCUSSION: This will be the first large-scale randomised trial of a text-message reminder in a national screening programme for CRC. If effective, this study provides a cost-effective means to promote uptake of CRC screening in an organised programme.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN70904476 (18/09/2015).

Indexed as

Occult BloodAdultAgedCell PhoneColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedReminder SystemsState MedicineText Messaging

Identifiers

PMID26809344
PMCPMC4727285
OpenAlexW2256914744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.